The debate about legal recognition of same-sex marriage is ultimately grounded in our understanding of human nature, values, and the role of human relationships in creating and defining the type society we desire. For the vast majority of Americans, these issues are understood in the context of the Bible and religious traditions, the Instruction Manual provided by our manufacturer.[1]

This critical debate is not truly between homosexuals and heterosexuals; it is between two opposing worldviews, one secular and the other religious.[2] Approximately 80% of Americans hold a religious worldview,[3] but the secular left has done an excellent, yet nefarious, job of dividing those with a religious worldview through false stereotyping. Their manipulative divide & conquer strategy has led many religious people to erroneously fear other religious people more than they fear the secular fundamentalists set on destroying religion and Judeo-Christian values. Thus, many Americans are understandably confused about the same-sex marriage issue and its ultimate driving force, secular fundamentalism.

Everyone does not fit neatly into the purely religious or purely secular worldviews, but sitting this one out is not a viable alternative. The stakes for our families and free society are too great. We have to join one team or the other, so we must each choose which team is closer to our own personal values, or which team is further from our values. To avoid a choice is still a choice - one for the other team.

The Religious Position Everyone knows the secular and radical gay rights side of the argument; the public schools, universities, and mass media faithfully present it to us. Fewer understand the religious side of the argument, which is falsely portrayed as ignorant, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and homophobic. A proper understanding of the religious position is necessary if a real debate is to take place prior to the destruction of a 5,000-year-old institution by a minority of citizens, against the will of the majority.

To discuss the religious view of human nature is not to ignore science, which also informs the opinions of Americans. Many people may not be aware that modern science is belatedly learning that the Biblical view of human nature is more accurate than the views that have been the foundation for most of secular liberalism. In his courageous new book, The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature, MIT professor Steven Pinker, himself a secular liberal, concludes  the theory of human nature coming out of the cognitive revolution has more in common with the Judeo-Christian theory of human nature than with behaviorism, social constructionism, and other versions of the Blank Slate. Those that think religion is just ancient superstition should take a second, or in many cases, a first look.

To discuss the religious view in dealing with matters of public policy is also not to ignore Separation of Church and State, a 19th century metaphor mistakenly assumed to be in the U.S. Constitution. Unlike humans who are born morally tabula rasa with a blank slate, the United States was not created morally tabula rasa as a secular nation. The unifying moral principle of this countrys founding was a religious faith in a divine Creator and the freedom of each individual to practice his or her religion (or no religion) without interference from the government.

The Founders believed that religious faith, particularly the Judeo-Christian tradition, provided the objective ethical basis needed for a free society to properly function. To this very day, the majority of Americans share this belief, so to ban religion from the public square is to radically redefine America into a secular nation in opposition to both the principles upon which it was created and the wishes of the majority of its citizens.

The government, as defined in the First Amendment and explained by its author James Madison, must remain neutral between various sects of religion, but is not required to remain neutral between religion and irreligion.[4] In the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, so frequently and erroneously presented as an atheist, The God who gave us life, gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God?

A review of traditional Judaisms opposition, to homosexuality and most importantly its public sanction with the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, will highlight the fallacies many well-meaning people, Jew and non-Jew, have apparently accepted.[5] (Judaism will guide this discussion, although the general ideas should be in agreement with traditional Christianity.)

To have compassion and tolerance for all of Gods children is admirable and a mitzvah (commandment) under Jewish law, but there is no way Jewish law and tradition can be perverted to endorse and publicly sanction same-sex marriage.

The Instruction Manual is clear and unequivocal. You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination.[6] The ultimate punishment for homosexuality along with the other sexual sins listed in this section, such as bestiality and incest, is kares; Gods cutting off their souls (spiritually) from the midst of their people. Kares is generally understood to be exacted after death, and is considered one of the most severe punishments for a sin. In Judaism, the harshness of the punishment assigned to a sin, whether or not meant to be carried out by humans, helps us understand the relative seriousness of the sin.

Obviously, sexual immorality is a very serious matter for Jews, but Judaism also teaches that sexual immorality, including homosexuality, is universally prohibited to all humans as one of the seven Noahide Laws, Gods natural law for all mankind.[7]

The very first commandment in the Bible comes immediately following Gods creation of human beings, male and female together and equally in His image. God commands us to Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.[8] The great 19th century sage, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch describes this fourfold mission as a guide to the whole free-willed moral development of the human race: Fruitful is marriage, multiply is the family, fill the earth is society, and subdue it is property, i.e. the mastering, appropriating and transforming the earth and its products for human purposes.[9]

Rabbi Hirsch further points out the critical nature of heterosexual relationships, based on the Commandment for man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife, and they will be one flesh.[10] Man is not unique among living beings in having a sexual life. But other creatures require mating only for the purpose of breeding; because male and female were created simultaneously, they can function independent of one another. Man is different: woman was created from man to show that only in a partnership do the two of them form a complete human being.[11]

While a small percentage of humans may subconsciously desire a same-sex relationship because it is less complex and challenging, God warns us to consciously overcome that desire and understand that He created the female to be a helper corresponding to the male. As the sages explain, A wife is neither mans shadow nor his servant, but his other self, a helper in a dimension beyond the capability of any other creature.[12] Interestingly, the Hebrew word, kinegdo, here translated as corresponding to him, may also be translated as against him or opposite him; reflecting the built-in complexity and difficulty of the complementary relationship between man and woman.

So humans, originally created as male and female, then separated, must rejoin not just physically, but spiritually to create a civil and prosperous society. Our Creator did not design us to achieve this necessary spiritual unity with same-sex relationships.

But humans do not like rules defining and inhibiting our behavior, so we use our God-given ability to rationalize almost anything and accept erroneous ideas in order to ignore those rules.

Fallacy #1: Natural Inclination Equals Acceptable Public Behavior Whether a homosexual inclination is caused by genetics, hormonal changes in the womb, psychological development, or mere whim is completely irrelevant. The Creator of human nature would not have prohibited homosexual activity if He did not design this inclination to be controllable by human free will. He gave us free will to control the multitude of inclinations that we all possess to varying degrees. Some are extremely difficult to control, but we are discussing human behavior, not a passive trait such as skin color.

God also gave we mortal and physical humans commandments to guide us in the choices we make, in order to elevate ourselves spiritually - not to live as instinctual animals, but as rational human beings created in His image. And our volitional efforts are necessary so the spirituality we attain will have a distinct human involvement.

As Maimonides (1135-1204), one of Judaisms greatest philosophers and legal codifiers, taught:

It is possible for a person to be born with a tendency to one of the virtues or one of the shortcomings  i.e., conduct [representative of this trait] will come easier to him than other types of conduct. He should not say that these shortcomings are already ingrained in his character and cannot be removed. For in every situation a person has the choice of changing from good to bad, and from bad to good. The choice is in his hands.[13]

Without free will, there is no basis for morality or for that matter Judaism or Christianity; so to argue that homosexuality or any prohibited behavior is OK because it is a natural inclination is an oxymoron.[14] After all, some scientists believe that people are born with inclinations to be violent or criminal or even pedophiles? Do we then condone and sanction these anti-social actions because they were born that way?

Those who believe modern science has proven homosexual activity is impossible to control, resist, or even change; and believe that people who disagree are ignorant and homophobic, should be more open-minded and check their premises.[15] Regardless of propaganda in the mass media, there is no scientific evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is either innate or immutable.[16]

Fallacy #2: Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage Is Hateful Homophobia Many view the legalization of same-sex marriage as eliminating discrimination in a desire not to make anyone feel uncomfortable, as if there is a Constitutional right not to feel uncomfortable. They even tie-in discussions of same-sex marriage with hate crimes legislation. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between hating the sin and hating the sinner.

The idea that opposition to homosexual activity and its public sanction is equivalent to or leads to hatred of individual homosexuals is a big lie created to demonize, intimidate, and silence opponents of the gay rights agenda. And the data confirms the big lie. Every crime of violence against another human being is reprehensible, but according to the latest FBI Hate Crimes statistics, it is estimated that less than 0.0001 of homosexuals were victims of violent assaults; not exactly an epidemic of homophobic rage spreading across America.[17]

In one of the founding documents of the gay liberation movement, published in the mid-1980s, the National Gay Task Force laid out their plan to create this big lie.[18]

The first order of business is the desensitization of the American people concerning gays and gay rights.

Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to it enough.

The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful imagemakers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of television daily. Those hours open a gate: the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message of normalcy.

Portray gays as victims. In any campaign to win over the public we must be cast as victims in need of protection, so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of the protector.

We can undercut the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters badly out of step with the times.

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights, it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified The public must be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust Middle America . These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burnt alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged. These images should be combined by a method propagandists call the bracket technique.

The propagandists have been extremely successful! We let their Trojan horse enter our homes unabated, and we let them infect the minds of our children. But it is still a lie, built on anti-religious bigotry.

---------------------------------------------------------

[1] As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, just as automobile manufacturers provide an Instruction Manual with every car produced, God gave human beings an Instruction Manual upon our creation. Rabbi Lapin calls this Instruction Manual, Gods biblical blueprint, and it is revealed in the Torah  the Jewish bible that serves as the foundation for both Judaism and Christianity. It is further revealed in the oral law given by God to Moses and further explained by the sages over thousands of years.

[2] For a larger understanding of the secular war against religion and Judeo-Christian values in the U.S. , see Daniel Lapin, Americas Real War, Multomah, 1999. Another excellent resource is Rabbi Lapins audio presentation, Is America Airborne? Or have we run out of fuel? available from Toward Tradition at http://www.towardtradition.org/.

[3] In the United States, 75% of citizens identify themselves as having a religious outlook, compared to 10% with a secular outlook, 6% with a somewhat secular outlook, and 9% who either do not know or refused this question. It is assumed that some of these 9% also hold a religious outlook, thus the approximation of 80% of Americans holding a religious worldview. Only 1% of Americans identify themselves at atheist or agnostic. Source: 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, The Graduate Center , City University of New York . Available online at: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm

[4] For a detailed analysis of the Founders intent in writing the 1st Amendment, see the dissent that Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1985 Supreme Court case (Wallace v, Jaffree). Available online at: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wallace/Rehnquist.html.

[5] It is bewildering that organizations describing themselves as Jewish could applaud and advocate the Judicial tyranny leading to a right for homosexuals to marry. These groups include ADL, AJC, Hadassah, and the Religious Action Center of the Reform movement.

[6] Leviticus 18:22

[7] The Seven Noahide Laws, derived from the Five Books of Moses and delineated in the Talmud, are considered by Jewish scholars to be Natural Law for non-Jews. The first six are prohibitions against murder, theft, sexual immorality, idol worship, blaspheming God, and eating a limb torn from a living animal (animal cruelty). The 7th law is a positive requirement to institute a system of law and courts to implement the first six. Online information available at: http://www.rb.org.il/noahide/noahinstitute.htm.

[14] For those that erroneously believe science has ruled out the existence of free will, refer to Jeffrey Satinover, The Quantum Brain  The Search for Freedom and the Next Generation of Man, John Wiley & Sons, 2001.

[15] For example, refer to Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. Baker Books, 1996. The most current research in this field is available online at http://www.narth.com/. There is also a Jewish organization, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) which offers information on their website, http://www.jonahweb.org/.

[16] See The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science, available online at http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.

[17] See Hate Crime Statistics, 2002 at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecrime2002.pdf. An assumption was made that 3% of the U.S. population above age 14 was homosexual or approximately 6.6 million. The total violent hate crimes due to sexual orientation was 633. If it is assumed that homosexuals represent a higher proportion of Americans, such as the estimated upper limit of 5%, the ratio of hate crimes is even far less significant.

Judaism and Christianity both abhor the sin of homosexual behavior, but only teach love, respect, and toleration for individual fellow humans - all created in the image of God. Religious people who believe homosexual behavior is a sin and oppose same-sex marriage can sincerely say, Some of my best friends are gay!

The fact is that a person practicing homosexuality has committed a religious sin, a very serious one in Gods eyes, but so has a Jew that doesnt keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, or violates any of the Commandments. They are no less Jewish, and society lives and deals with these sinners in a variety of amicable, tolerant, and neighborly ways without creating special legal rights. This same tolerance applies to homosexuals.[19]

Truly religious people are tolerant of others with whom they disagree and can live peaceably and neighborly with them in a free society.[20] This is especially true in America where the political environment has always been one based on respect for and protection of individual rights. But the gay rights movement does not want tolerance; they want nothing less than forced acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, healthy, and moral; a position most religious people must reject for themselves and their children. And this is where the problems arise.

This undemocratic use of government force by a minority of citizens is at its most despicable when public schools are used to impose these ideas on children of religious families.[21] And as if this use of public schools for ideological indoctrination were not enough, they then use judicial activism to control private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, which are only remotely connected to the government.

Are there intolerant religious people? Of course, but they represent only a small minority not fully observing a basic tenet of both Judaism and Christianity, Love thy neighbor as thyself.[22] Their religious practice, however flawed, at least constrains their behavior, and in the long run it is an effective tool for improving their humanity.

On the other side, without religion as the basis for the public moral culture, what will constrain behavior and lead to an improvement of humanity? What will restrain secular intolerance from infecting not a small minority, but a large majority? Historys grand experiment with a secular society, Communism, was an evil and dismal failure that killed approximately 100 million innocent people in the 20th Century.[23] Add to that the Holocaust perpetrated by the socialist, neo-pagan Nazis. All of the (Judeo-Christian) religious wars in the history of the world pale by comparison.[24]

Could a secular society result in a nation as great as the United States ? Anything is possible in a perfect world, but in our imperfect world, no such society has yet approached the freedom and the spiritual and material prosperity of the United States .

Those who wish to ban religion from the public square and impose secularism on the majority of Americans would do well to rethink their position  the grass is not always greener on the other side As Benjamin Franklin wrote to Thomas Paine in an attempt to persuade Paine to abandon his anti-religion essays: If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it.[25]

The hidden [sins] are for Hashem, our God, but the revealed [sins] are for us and our children forever, to carry out all the words of this Torah.

(Deuteronomy 29:28)

The sages explain that Moses is teaching, hidden sins are the province of God alone, and He holds no one responsible but the sinners themselves. But everyone is obligated to safeguard against openly committed sins.[26] Thus, homosexual activity between consenting adults practiced in privacy is primarily a sin against God, and He will deal with it. It is not a matter for government regulation. The same cannot be said about same-sex marriage.

Most people may be surprised to know that the debate over same-sex marriage is not new. As the wise King Solomon taught us, There is nothing new under the sun. The Bible teaches that God brought on the Flood in Noahs time because, all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.[27] A fascinating Midrash (ancient rabbinic commentary on the Bible) teaches: the generation of the Flood was only blotted out from the world because they wrote marriage contracts for males and for females.[28]

Later, the Talmud teaches that Noahides (monotheistic non-Jews) who did not observe all of the Noahide laws at least did not write a marriage contract for males [29] In explaining this discussion, Rashi, the great 11th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, points out the vital distinction between private actions and public policy:

Even though they are suspected of homosexuality and sequester themselves with males for intercourse, nevertheless, they are not so irresponsible about this commandment that they would write a marriage contract for them.

There are serious consequences to a society that officially sanctions activities the vast majority of its citizens accept as immoral. We ignore, at our own peril, the infinite difference between acceptable private and public behavior, especially for families raising children with a focus on future generations, a challenge very few homosexuals share.

To publicly sanction same-sex marriage is to implicitly sanction the short-term outlook on life inherent to homosexuality. A perfect example of the disastrous public policy effects of this sort-sighted viewpoint was the father of FDRs New Deal, economist John Maynard Keynes. A major flaw in Keynes thinking was his concentration on the short-term. He thought that focus on the long run was utterly futile and one of the great mistakes in economics. He abhorred "savings," thought the "abstinence" of people impedes the growth of wealth, and believed savings are always a potential threat to economic progress.

One of the leading economists of the 20th Century, Joseph Schumpeter, noted the connection between Keynes flawed ideas and his "childless and essentially short run philosophy of life" when he said, "for a person committed to homosexuality, who is without descendants, there is little for them to focus the future on."[30] It is not a coincidence that the Hebrew word in the Bible for children is linguistically the same as builders.

As economist and political philosopher Thomas Sowell explains, [31]

Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three of four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes, and species. Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.

If society elects not to say anything about it and abandons the primacy of the traditional family, with its focus on children and future generations, we also abandon our connections to past generations, traditions, and history. All we will be left with is a present filled with hedonistic irresponsibility. And we dont have to wait too long - just look around! This current attempt at a perpetual age of adolescence, if not halted soon, will lead at an increasingly rapid rate to the uncontrollable destruction of civil society.

The Emperor Nero reportedly went so far as to write a marriage contract for one of his favorite male lovers.[32] Do we really want to follow the Roman Empire into decline and ruin? It is critical to recognize the essential difference between a society where homosexuality is practiced privately and one that actually gives it official sanction and recognition.

Fallacy #4: Economic Benefits For Homosexuals Can Only Be Obtained By Government Force

Proponents of same-sex marriage claim all they really want are equal rights for homosexuals who live together as couples. This is very appealing to Americans who historically been tolerant and fair, but it is a false argument.

Before new rights are created, it is only logical to ask what is their source. The revolutionary achievement of the Founders of the United States was their recognition that neither they nor any government could create rights. This was in complete contrast to the historic Divine Rights of Kings or the modern systems of man-made collective rights, such as in the former Soviet Union .

The individual rights of man were from God, as the Declaration of Independence clearly states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights  President John F. Kennedy confirmed the divine source of these rights in his Inaugural Address,  the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

Same-sex marriage, by any stretch of the imagination, is in complete contradiction to Gods Instruction Manual, so if the rights of man come from the hand of God, it is inconceivable that God would view same-sex marriage as a right.

If proponents of same-sex marriage truly want just the economic benefits (not rights) that heterosexual sexual couples have, those benefits can easily be provided in the free market on a voluntary basis, without the use of government force. Many corporations such as Disney, General Electric, and Wal-Mart accommodate their employee benefit programs for homosexuals and many already include insurance coverage for domestic partners. Just as voluntary sexual activity should be a private matter, economic benefits for private sexual relationships should be voluntary. This may entail modifications in some State laws concerning contracts and benefits, but it does not require laws destroying the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman that has been the cornerstone of civilization for over 5,000 years.

---------------------------------------------------------

[19] For a detailed discussion on how the word tolerance has become corrupted by secular fundamentalists to really become intolerance, see the Toward Tradition pamphlet, Terrorized by Tolerance, available online at http://www.towardtradition.org/pamphlet.htm.

[20] For this discussion, religion refers to the twin civilizations of the Bible, Judaism and Christianity, as practiced within the United States . Traditional Islam might also fall into this category, but a full discussion of Islam and other religious traditions is beyond he scope of this paper.

[21] It is ironic that if the secular fundamentalists are successful in legalizing same-sex marriage and achieving their other goals such as removing any public mention or display of God, it will be the kiss of death for the public school system that they have used to indoctrinate Americas children. Parents will eventually revolt and take back control of their childrens education through a voucher system.

[22] Leviticus 19:18

[23] Courtois, et al, The Black Book of Communism, Harvard University Press, 1999.

[24] Many in the Jewish community hold Christianity responsible for the Nazi Holocaust. There is no doubt that European Christian anti-Semitism historically created a terrible and horrendous mindset against Jews in Europe , and played an indirect role in the Holocaust. However, the ultimate expression of this anti-Semitism was carried out, not by Christians, but by the National Socialists (Nazis) who were neo-pagans and also hated Christians. See The Churchs Responsibility, in The Rav, The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, volume II, KTAV Publishing, 1999.

[25] A letter to Thomas Paine (Dissuading him from publishing a Work of an irreligious Tendency.) The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, Editor. As quoted in David Barton, Original Intent, Wallbuilder Press, 2002.

[26] Commentary on Deuteronomy 29:28 based on Rashi and Ramban, as quoted in The Chumash, Stone Edition. Mesorah Publications.

[27] Genesis 6:12

[28] Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra 23.9

[29] Tractate of Chullin (92 a & b)

[30] See Samuel Silver, In the long run, we are all dead - NOT! Jewish World Review, Dec. 21, 2000 , available online at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/sam/silver122100.asp.

[32] David Novak, The Image of the Non-Jew in Judaism. An Historical and Constructive Study of the Noahide Laws. The Edwin Mellen Press, 1983.

--------------------------------------------------------

A Final Fallacy: Same-Sex Marriage Hurts No One

In America , we believe in Live and Let Live, so who is hurt if two boys or two girls want to marry each other?

Live & Let Live is a great hallmark of American political life, but it is only effective in matters between fully developed adults. The introduction of children and a concern for future generations change the equation.

This is especially true when it comes to public sanctions and forced indoctrination of children in the public school system. Parents should not be forced to teach their children that a fundamental religious and moral prohibition, one that has been a standard of Judeo-Christian morality for thousands of years, is not only condoned, but is publicly sanctioned by their government.

Many homosexuals, such as those with a religious worldview and especially those with children or strong family ties, understand and accept the position that same-sex marriage will be harmful to society; yet it is understandable that many other homosexuals might not see the harm in same-sex marriage.

But, why do so many heterosexuals support same-sex marriage? It seems apparent that most are misled with the nice sounding, but intentionally false idea that government force is necessary to eliminate hatred, uncomfortable feelings, and differences in economic benefits. What about those leading this battle and intentionally misleading the public? Why are they so vociferously demanding the right to impose this potentially disastrous policy on the majority of Americans?

The answer lies in the fundamental difference between the secular and the religious worldviews; therefore, it is not unimportant that the vast majority of Americans hold a religious outlook on life. The third chapter of the Talmud, Pirkei Avos, (Chapters of the Fathers), asks three of the most critical questions humans grapple with.[33] As Rabbi Daniel Lapin explains, each of these transcendental questions can be answered in two primary ways, defining the difference between the two worldviews.[34]

Religious: To an ultimate day of Gods choosing when a grand Messianic redemption will take place resulting in the whole world recognizing God and His truth.

Secular: To an ultimate day of destruction and oblivion that will wipe us out through overcrowding, poverty, global warming, acid rain, nuclear explosion, off-course meteorites or any combination of the above.

3: What are we supposed to be doing here?

Religious: We are supposed to be developing our relationship with God and becoming closer to Him through studying and following His Torah and obeying His mitzvoth. In other words, we have a set of objective ethics to live by.

Secular: There are no objective ethics, so everything is subjective and relative. Anything goes is good enough as far as our personal lives go! Our primary focus on the future is to head off the threats to humanity in the Secular answer to question #2. If they are too formidable for us to solve alone, we should urge our government to solve them. If they are too much for one government to solve, we should urge governments to cooperate through the United Nations in order to solve them.

Monotheists, such as Jews and Christians, would be in basic agreement with the religious answers, albeit with variations in the details.

Secularists eschew objective values and ethics,[36] and look at the future as extremely tenuous and limited to only this world. The ultimate day of destruction and oblivion are rapidly approaching, and there is nothing after that! Thus both homosexual and heterosexual secularists, based on their secular worldview, can very easily fall into the trap of supporting same-sex marriage. To do so, they intentionally ignore the serious problems they are imposing on parents with a religious worldview - parents trying to teach their children Judeo-Christian values.

Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only social justice to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview, even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular movement are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people; a constant reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of Americans, who believe in God, to fear religion more than secularism, in complete disregard to the barbaric reality of the 20th century.

After the fall of Nazism and Communism, the secular fundamentalists focused primarily on post-Christian Europe and American academia, turning both into hotbeds of anti-religious bigotry and virulent anti-Semitism. These self-proclaimed progressives espouse diversity, but are in fact very close-minded and hostile to all political, cultural, and especially religious opinions with which they disagree.

Over a century ago, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch anticipated modern secular fundamentalism with prophetic precision.[37]

It is now no longer enough for the apostate to be able to live undisturbed according to his convictions, as he calls them; to him there is no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid.

He sees in the Law an intellectual slavery from which it is the Godly task of a second Moses to redeem his unfortunate brothers. In Torah-loyalty, he sees superstition, backwardness, and at the same time a calamity which is to blame for all the miseries of the past.

He sees in liberation from the yoke of the Law a goal so high and so humanitarian that every means which seems capable of bringing about progress toward this great goal must be employed.

He has reached the stage of waging fanatical campaigns of persecution against those loyal to the Law.

Extremists on either side can be dangerous if initiation of force is not limited by a strong Constitutional defense of individual rights and religious freedom.[38] The secular side, however, offers the greatest risk to society. It contains no internalized mechanism for an objective moral code of human cooperation and must rely solely on the collectivized, legalistic force of government for citizens to defend themselves. It also contains no effective, common moral foundation for raising children, especially in a vacuum without an existent moral culture passed down from previous generations of religious tradition.

---------------------------------------------------------

[33] The three questions are literally: Know whence you came, whither you go, and before Whom you will give justification and reckoning.

[34] For a more complete discussion of these three essential questions, see Daniel Lapin, Americas Real War, Multomah, 1999. Also see Rabbi Lapins article, Ethnicity versus Belief in Jewish Marriage available online at: http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Ethnicity_vs_belief.htm

[35] The logical conclusion of the secular answer to this first question of How did human beings come to be on this planet? is socialism and/or its collectivist first cousin fascism, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper.

[38] As Nobel laureate, Milton Friedman has pointed out on numerous occasions, only a classical liberal approach to limited government and free-markets (libertarian, with a small L, in 20th Century terms) will effectively protect individuals and especially minorities, whether racial or religious. For example, see Capitalism and Freedom, U. of Chicago Press , 1963, and Capitalism and the Jews, Presidential Address to the Mont Pelerin Society (1972), available online at http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=1967.

Another Nobel laureate, economist and philosopher, F.A. Hayek, himself a religious agnostic, believed that societies and even religions could come into being by his concept of spontaneous order, but that only certain monotheistic ones have proven successful in transmitting the necessary beneficial traditions. As he stated, Among the founders of religions over the last two thousand years, many opposed property and the family. But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family. F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit, U. of Chicago Press, 1988, Volume 1, Chapter 9.

Hayek and Friedman would both agree that socialism and all forms of collectivism are dangerous for Jews, Christians, and all other human beings.

------------------------------------------------------- The Ultimate Victims Who are the ultimate victims? On a micro level, our children are the victims, but on a macro level, our free society will be the victim. As President John Adams said in 1798,

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[39]

George Washington expressed this same idea in his 1796 Farewell Address to the Nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.[40]

In other words, our secular form of government was designed only for a non-secular people.

150 years later, President Harry Truman confirmed that a moral and religious people were still necessary for maintenance of our free society. [41]

The fundamental basis of this nations laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul .

If we dont have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State.

Adams, Washington, the other Founders, and Presidents through George W. Bush have understood that a limited Constitutional government of the people, by the people, and for the people could work only if the society is primarily self-policed, based on a common moral code that served as an invisible net of social stability. In America this has always been the Judeo-Christian values derived from the Bible, most recently expressed in the phrase one nation under God.

Some argue that to officially state the United States is one nation under God or to publicly recognize Judeo-Christian thought as the source of our legal and political systems violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists. The very concept of rights in the United States presupposes belief in the God of the Bible, not by every citizen, but at least by the majority. Like homosexuals, atheists want to invent a right to force their neighbors to lock their religious beliefs in the closet, so no one except the religious ever feels uncomfortable.

To accept the assertion that public sanction of religion violates the rights of atheists and non-monotheists, one must completely ignore the Declaration of Independence, the history and writings of the Founders, and our nations history until the last 50 years. If ignored, then this discussion is not about the United States , but a completely new country. How can the greatest nation in the history of the world allow judges and special interest groups to completely redefine the nature and character of this great country without ascertaining the will of the majority through a democratic process?[42]

Do we really believe that the Founders, who created this revolutionary concept of rights and created the greatest Constitutional system as yet devised by mankind, did not understand what they were doing? Contrary to a historical myth perpetrated by the secularists, America at the time of the founding included atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc.,[43] and the Founders knew that it was only this unique form of government, based on individual rights from God, that would protect people of all beliefs.

As historian David Barton explains, the Founders were all religious Christians, but they did not oppose pluralism, as long as the beliefs of other religions did not threaten the stability of civil society.[44] In fact, the Founders believed that pluralism survived only within the concept of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity,[45] uniquely different from European Christianity and based on what we now term the Judeo-Christian Ethic.[46]

The opposite is not necessarily true. As Rabbi Hirsch taught us about the secular fundamentalist, there will be no well-being and no peace as long as his convictions have not become the only ones recognized as right and valid. He cannot tolerate a religious worldview outside the confines of the church or synagogue. Sadly, the history of 20th century Europe and the secular liberalism of 21st century American academia confirm both his prediction and the understanding of the Founders that pluralism of belief will not survive in a secular society.

People yearn for predictability in their lives and communities, and this invisible net provides that predictability in their everyday lives. If predictability is lost to chaos, they often turn to dictators or other forms of totalitarian government to restore predictability.

Without a moral public culture shared by the majority of citizens to provide the invisible net of social stability, government could not be limited and would have to encroach into every citizens life and freedom. Instead of a free society of cooperation between individuals, more and more human interaction would have to be decided by the legal system and bureaucrats. Morality would be replaced by legality, which helps explain why the judicial system is taking control of our government and our lives. Without a commonly accepted morality, there is no basis for human cooperation, other than force. Freedom would rapidly morph into tyranny.

As Rabbi Lapin has explained:[47]

One unintended side effect of the secular fundamentalism sweeping America is how it erodes the rules that hold together the invisible net of social stability. By encouraging unfettered personal license, secular fundamentalism helps collapse civilized norms. Then, when people dress with deliberately provocative vulgarity and they express themselves loudly and obscenely in public, hardworking, family-minded citizens are left with a growing feeling of unease. When young people no longer see their maturation leading naturally toward marriage and when marriage itself becomes threatened by cultural ridicule and purported alternatives, parents feel unmoored. When public institutions depict religion as only for the emotionally needy and the intelligence impaired many Americans feel resentment and alienation.

This is obviously not to suggest that the hobby of shattering traditional rules that seems to delight so many journalists, academics, and intellectuals is going to endow America with a future dictatorial tyrant. It can eventually, however, infect ordinary Americans with docility about further Federal control beyond that necessary to protect us from our enemies. In a desperate attempt to recover some sense of normality and predictability in our lives, we might be tempted to embrace expanded government influence over how we live, earn, and worship. We would yearn for the predictability and normality that used to be supplied by those traditional rules that many Jewish and Christian Americans of faith remember increasingly nostalgically. Biblically-based faith helps to maintain freedom by holding together the invisible framework of social stability.

The Founders understood this lesson well, but we have strayed from that lesson.

Our free society, as the Founders dreamed it and we once knew it, will be lost forever unless Americans make a political stand to preserve this endangered invisible framework of social stability. That stand must begin with protecting children from the Trojan horse of secular fundamentalism expressed in such formerly unthinkable legalisms as same-sex marriage.

The secular fundamentalists leading this assault on Judeo-Christian values understand very well that the children are their point of attack. If you doubt that children are the intended victims, read the words of an openly homosexual woman who was formerly an insider in the leadership of the feminist and radical gay rights movements, until she realized these movements were no longer based on the ideal of civil-rights, but on socialism, the foundational model of the Far Left.[48] These are a few of her comments about their efforts to end anti-gay bias in K-12 schools.[49]

For people whose entire identity and reason to live is based in their sexuality, what do they need to do in order to fit comfortably into our society? They must work to sexualize every part of society  and, as every good marketer knows, that effort must begin with children.

The efforts of gay establishment organizations, if the future is really their concern, should be focused on persuading the horde of bacchanalian boys to change their lifestyle. Instead, they are demanding that we accept their degeneracy, and the destruction of our future in the process. We dare not judge them. We dare not question their actions. And we are to hand the nations children over to them.

This is why a free society such as the United States , where the vast majority of the people believe in Judeo-Christian values, can tolerate unrestricted private sexual activity between consenting adults, but cannot allow public sanction and endorsement of homosexuality as a cultural norm.

Will God Continue to Bless America ?

Until the past few years, almost all Americans, and especially Presidents and candidates for President, firmly believed that America had earned Gods blessings. Now, secularists and even some Presidential candidates question this bedrock belief of religious Americans. The naysayers may unwittingly prove to be correct if they are successful in imposing their secular agenda on the majority of Americans.

From the religious point of view, same-sex marriage and its public sanction of homosexuality will desecrate Gods name. On a much larger scale it will also risk the loss of His blessings on the United States , so eloquently requested by President George Washington in his first Inaugural address (1789):

it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes.

Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition (www.towardtradition.org), a national movement of Jewish and Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular fundamentalism. He may be contacted at ss@towardtradition.org

---------------------------------------------------------

[39] John Adams. 1798 Address to the Military. Quoted in William J. Federer, Americas God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations. Amerisearch, 2000.

[41] President Harry Truman, Address to the Attorney Generals Conference, 1950. Quoted in William J. Federer, Americas God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations. Amerisearch, 2000.

[42] George Washington warned of an undemocratic usurpation of power by one branch of government in his 1796 Farewell address: It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confirm themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. George Washington, Farewell Address, Philadelphia , September 17, 1796 . Available online at: http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/P/gw1/speeches/gwfar.htm

[43] For a discussion of religious pluralism at the time of the Founders, see David Barton, Original Intent, Wallbuilder Press, 2002. P. 31. Although atheists existed in colonial times, they were not numerous or at least not publicly visible. Even today, only approximately 1% of Americans claim to be atheists or agnostics. See 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, The Graduate Center , City University of New York . Available online at: http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm. Another 13% specify no religion, but that is not the same as atheism.

In a pamphlet written for Europeans considering relocation to America , Benjamin Franklin offered this outlook on atheism in America . Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. Information to Those Who Would Remove to America, quoted in William J. Federer, Americas God and Country - Encyclopedia of Quotations. Amerisearch, 2000. P. 247.

[44] Thomas Jefferson, a committed Unitarian Christian, also understood well the importance of religious pluralism as long as the religions did not threaten the stability of civil society. In 1822 he wrote to a fellow Unitarian, I write with freedom because, while I claim a right to believe in one God, if so my reason tells me, I yield as freely to others that of believing in three. Both religions I find make honest men, and that is the only point society has any authority to look to. Quoted in Eugene Sheridan, Jefferson and Religion, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1998, P. 68.

[45] David Barton, Original Intent, Wallbuilder Press, 2002. P. 33.

[46] To understand the unique combination of Christian and Jewish thought that was the hallmark of the Founders, see Jewish Metaphysics at the Founding in Michael Novaks On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense at the American Founding, Encounter Books, 2002. Some of Novaks discussion is available online at: http://www.politicsandvirtue.com/novak1.htm.

[47] Daniel Lapin, And it came to pass in the days of Saddam. Available online at: http://www.towardtradition.org/article_Saddam.htm

[48] Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police, Inside the Lefts Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds, Random House, 2001, P.4. Ms. Bruce was formerly President of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW).

[49] Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Lefts Assault on Our Culture and Values, Prima Publishing/Random House, 2003, pp 103-104. This discussion is about GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.

This is the best traditional understanding of homosexuality and same sex marriage I've come across on The Web. Its long and footnoted, covering four pages, so Freepers who are interested may want to bookmark it. Once you've read it, you'll never see faith, homosexuality and same sex marriage in the same light again.

[4] For a detailed analysis of the Founders intent in writing the 1st Amendment, see the dissent that Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1985 Supreme Court case (Wallace v, Jaffree). Available online at: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Wallace/Rehnquist.html.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 1984: A bill becomes unconstitutional even though the wording may be constitutionally acceptable, if the legislator who introduced the bill had a religious activity in his mind when he authored it.

3
posted on 04/03/2004 2:53:58 AM PST
by WhiteyAppleseed
(2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)

As historian David Barton explains, the Founders were all religious Christians, but they did not opposepluralism, as long as the beliefs of other religions did not threaten the stability of civil society.[44] In fact, the Founders believed that pluralism survived only within the concept of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity,[45] uniquely different from European Christianity and based on what we now term the Judeo-Christian Ethic.[46]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in a speech to a Philadelphia conference on religion in public life, in May of 1991: Protecting religious freedoms may be more important in the late twentieth century than it was when the Bill of Rights was ratified. We live in a pluralistic society, with people of widely divergent religious backgrounds or with none at all. Government cannot endorse beliefs of one group without sending a clear message to non-adherents that they are outsiders.

4
posted on 04/03/2004 2:58:11 AM PST
by WhiteyAppleseed
(2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)

The government, as defined in the First Amendment and explained by its author James Madison, must remain neutral between various sects of religion, but is not required to remain neutral between religion and irreligion.

No?

"The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion, it will cease to be free for religion--except for the sect that can win political power." (Justice Robert H. Jackson, dissenting opinion, U. S. Supreme Court, Zorach v. Clausor, April 7, 1952. From Daniel B. Baker, ed., Political Quotations, Detroit: Gale Research, Inc., 1990, p. 190.)

"Jefferson wrote voluminously to prove that Christianity was not part of the law of the land and that religion or irreligion was purely a private matter, not cognizable by the state. "(Leonard W. Levy, Treason Against God: A History of the Offense of Blasphemy, New York: Schocken Books, 1981, p. 335.)

6
posted on 04/03/2004 3:08:06 AM PST
by WhiteyAppleseed
(2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)

To discuss the religious view of human nature is not to ignore science, which also informs the opinions of Americans.

Informs and rules the opinions of Americans, and the Evangelists of Science are quick to appeal to the lord of the universe, public opinion, every and anytime they desire to use government to coerce the individual or the group.

Science, one could argue, has replaced the priests of tribal culture who climbed the pyramid and returned to forecase the eclipse and demand the sacrifice of humans to appease the gods and to reap a harvest of food.

Science still sacrifices humans with the sanctioned killing of humans not yet born.

7
posted on 04/03/2004 3:20:24 AM PST
by WhiteyAppleseed
(2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)

A proper understanding of the religious position is necessary if a real debate is to take place prior to the destruction of a 5,000-year-old institution by a minority of citizens, against the will of the majority.

And that would be impossible without Paul's letter to the Romans. For example, Paul explains his view on the evolution/creation debate in the first chapter of Romans: 1:18-20

He then admonishes man for violating the 1st (commandment). 1:21-22

And because of that, Paul says "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another...he gave them over to a depraved mine to do what ought not to be done." 1:24-28

Paul then described the USA as it exists today. If Paul's words applied to the Romans and the USA fits his description in the 1st century, then one could make the flippant argument that homosexuality will cause global warming.

The 1st Amendment is there to protect the will of the majority, but it is not there so that the majority can impose their will on the minority. Nor can the minority impose their views on the majority.

9
posted on 04/03/2004 3:43:33 AM PST
by WhiteyAppleseed
(2 million defensive gun uses a year. Tell that to the Gun Fairy who'd rather leave you toothless.)

If society elects not to say anything about it and abandons the primacy of the traditional family, with its focus on children and future generations, we also abandon our connections to past generations, traditions, and history. All we will be left with is a present filled with hedonistic irresponsibility.

Excellent article!! Bookmarked for future reference.

15
posted on 04/03/2004 5:40:08 AM PST
by NYer
(The Maronite, works, builds, and plants as if he is celebrating the liturgy. - Father Michel HAYEK)

This is an interesting and informative read, but it's really much too long. It strikes me that he could have summed the problem up in a few words. To whit:

The problem is not about sex, it's about whether "because God said so" is a valid response. The Founders -- along with most of the rest of the American population of the time -- believed that it was.

The devil is very subtle and he can make himself look very attractive. He knows better than we do the ways to pervert our best traits. If he can convince us that our own rationalizations are more valid than "because God said so," he can lead us astray. What's worse, we typically want to be led astray -- it seems easier, and more fun. (Until it's too late, of course....)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.